Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

Yes, because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There was one interjection that was out of order, and the member knows it.

💬 Dr Don Brash: How can she have confidence in the Minister of Police when the December edition of the Police Association magazine reveals that police communication centres have been experiencing serious staffing and technology problems resulting in 20 percent of calls from the public being lost in some centres?

As the member knows, those centres are being reviewed. A report is due in March. Submissions were called for by the external panel, which is reviewing the call centres, and I note that when submissions closed on 10 December the Police Association had not made a submission.

💬 Rodney Hide: Does she accept that it is important not just for her to have confidence in the Minister of Police but for the police themselves to have confidence in that Minister, and how can they have confidence in that Minister when five police officers are being pursued relentlessly through the courts simply because they assumed that the Prime Minister did want to get to the rugby on time, and could confidence not be restored all around by the Prime Minister just accepting responsibility for the fact that she was in charge?

The member knows that it is not appropriate for me to comment on matters that are before the courts. The member also knows that the Police Minister has no jurisdiction over such matters.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It had better be a point of order. That question was certainly addressed.

💬 Rodney Hide: My point of order is this: this case certainly does not apply to the sub judice rules like the Prime Minister explained before. That is incorrect. It is certainly OK for her to comment on this case—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. The member does not even know the Standing Orders, and he should take occasion over the adjournment to read them.

💬 Judy Turner: Does the Prime Minister have any confidence that the Minister of Police is fulfilling his obligations under her Government’s Health and Safety in Employment Act when police communications centres are so understaffed that some employees have developed urinary tract infections because they are unable to take comfort breaks?

For all I know that may have been asserted in the material the Police Association is putting into the public arena. The external panel is quite happy to reopen the submission deadline if the Police Association would like to make a submission to that effect.

💬 Dr Don Brash: Can the Prime Minister confirm that it is her intention to sack the Minister of Police in the upcoming reshuffle, given recent revelations of failure of the 111 call system, strong suggestions that the police have been directed not to go looking for methamphetamine laboratories because they make the crime statistics look bad, and generally low morale in the police force; if not, just what further revelations are required for her to dismiss the Minister of Police?

I can advise the House that the Minister of Police is substantially more likely to have his job next week than the Leader of the Opposition.

💬 Ron Mark: How can the Prime Minister continue to have confidence in a Minister who cannot answer a simple written question asking him to tell New Zealand First the registration plate numbers of the police cars involved in the high-speed movement from Waimate to Christchurch, or is he simply taking a lead from her, the Prime Minister, who has also refused to tell New Zealand First the registration plate number of the car she was travelling in?

I am not commenting on matters before the court, and I imagine that the Minister is taking the same view.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to know just how the sub judice rule now extends to car registration numbers. This is an extraordinary confinement of the rule to knowledge in this House. All we have asked for is the car registration number. That could be obtained in other ways as well, but we have sought it the proper way by merely asking for that information, and we have received the reply that that information is sub judice. With respect, if the car was being sold at this point in time, then the marketplace would be entitled to know what the registration number was, and it is not sub judice. So could the Prime Minister please answer the question properly?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Let me tell the member that I am not here to judge whether the question was answered on the actual answer given. The Prime Minister is entitled to reply like that, and she did, but that does not mean to say that I am saying the reply was good, bad, or otherwise. She certainly addressed the question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that is the case, unfortunately “rhubarb” becomes a satisfactory answer in this Parliament. All we are asking the Prime Minister is the registration number of the car that she was travelling in, because certain matters relate to that that the public would be interested in.

To say that is sub judice, and that that is an answer, just tells me that we have a contempt here for Parliament and a contempt for parliamentary questions. I know it is an answer, but it is an answer on the same basis as “rhubarb” would be. If that is the sub judice rule, how did it go from being what it once was—that is, if it did not relate directly to the case, then it could be mentioned—to being narrow and restrictive when it comes to parliamentary democracy?

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The Prime Minister did not say the matter is sub judice—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: She did.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: No, she did not.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is the last time today.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: What the Prime Minister said was that she was not commenting on matters before the court. That brings the answer into the category where a Minister declines to answer a question on the grounds of public interest, or other matters, which the Minister herself has to be the sole judge of.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member is right; the Prime Minister did not invoke the Standing Order by asking the Speaker to rule the question out. She gave an answer and she addressed the question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, I point out that the Deputy Prime Minister is not right. In a written answer to my colleague Ron Mark, that is precisely what she said and she knows it. I am putting it on the record that she is pleading the sub judice rule—first, in a written answer, and, secondly, by inference in her answer in this House today.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am talking about an oral question that has been asked in this House, and it was addressed.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am not entering into this argument any further, but if it is a point of order, I will be interested.

💬 Rodney Hide: It is. Is this not the point—that the Prime Minister is not prepared to answer, and she can do that, but she is just invoking the rule that she does not have to answer any particular question. It is not bringing in the sub judice rule; she is just not prepared to answer the question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member does not raise a point of order. He is just wasting the time of the House.

💬 Dr Don Brash: Is the Prime Minister aware that new charges have today been laid against the officers who accompanied her on her high-speed dash across Canterbury in July; if so, is she prepared to demonstrate her confidence in the Minister and her police by offering to give evidence at the trials of those officers?

I am only aware of what I read on the NZPA news screen, and I repeat that I will not be commenting on matters before the court.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that the reason why she will not give us, via her Minister of Police in whom she has enormous confidence, or herself, the answer to the question of the car registration is that the speeds involved created significant damage to the vehicle she was in, and even to the windscreen, but in all that time she did not notice the speed she was going, at all?

I have had no advice to the effect of the member’s question, at all.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Could the Prime Minister advise us what standards she is following when she is indicating confidence in the Minister of Police? Is it the same standard that she followed when she savagely criticised a National Minister of Police and said he should be sacked over the failure of the police’s centralised computer system—INCIS—or is it a different standard when under her watch her Minister has been in charge of the police’s latest centralised computer system—the Comm Centre—for handling 111 and other calls, where 20 percent of calls at many centres are regularly unanswered; and to give her a local example, when a call was made from Molesworth Street, which Parliament is in, the communications centre did not even know where it was and sent the vehicle to the wrong address. Now, if she following the same standard, why is that Minister still a Minister?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That question is too long. There are three questions, the Prime Minister may address two.

My recollection of the INCIS affair is that under a previous Government a rather large amount of public money went up in smoke. That is the first point. The second point is that the accusation in this case appears to be that not enough money is being spent. The third point I would make is the police do not always get everything right, but generally they do. With the 111 system there have clearly been problems. That is why there is a review, and I invite the Police Association to front up to the review and make a submission.

Primary Health Organisations—Progress

2. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Health: Has she received any reports regarding the progress of primary health organisations?

Yes. There are now 3.7 million New Zealanders enrolled in primary health organisations—91 percent of the population. We knew primary health organisations were delivering cheaper health-care to many New Zealanders, but after reading South Link Health’s survey of South Island primary health organisations released yesterday, it seems that even greater reductions have occurred. Well over half the actual charges are less than the advertised fee, or are free. I commend South Link Health’s members for their constructive approach in working with the Government to provide affordable primary health care.

💬 Steve Chadwick: Has the Minister seen any other reports regarding the future of primary health organisations?

I have seen many reports. The only report that concerns the health sector, however, is the flip-flop by National’s leader and his ever-changing health spokespeople on what they would do with the primary health organisations. He has gone from asking what they were last year to saying they would be gone by lunchtime this year. Meanwhile, his spokespeople have ranged from scrapping them to revisiting the matter. But who knows? One gets dizzy from looking at their twists and turns, and their flip-flops. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If members interject, they must expect a response. [Interruption] The member is about to leave the Chamber. I will not have him make comments like that. He should be quiet. Supplementary question—

💬 Judith Collins: Judith Collins. I haven’t had my hair done like the Hon Annette King, so there’s no excuse.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise.

💬 Judith Collins: Is the Minister aware of a primary health organisation in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board area offering special tax-paid taxi rides for people of Māori and Pasifika descent, which are only available to other New Zealanders based on need; and is she happy that that district health board insists on race-based assistance for some races but needs-based assistance for others?

Can I suggest the member has a perm. In answer to her question—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I know this is getting into the Christmas spirit, but just reflecting on hairstyling, I want to say that the last bit of Brylcreem I had in my hair was when I was about 9, and I still have quite a lot left. I call the Hon Annette King.

No, I am not aware of it. If the member would like to provide the information, I will certainly look at it. I can tell her that the Hawke’s Bay board, like those in other parts of New Zealand, does not provide race-based policies; it provides needs-based policies. The sooner that member works out that there are people who have needs, the sooner she will become a better health spokesperson—or maybe she is about to be changed.

💬 Barbara Stewart: Why is access to primary health organisations at subsidised rates for elderly New Zealanders still dependent on where people live, and when will she finally ensure that our senior citizens get universal access to subsidised primary health care?

The member is quite a few months out of date. Since 1 July this year every person over 65 years of age anywhere in New Zealand in any primary health organisation has had subsidised primary health care.

💬 Heather Roy: Is it correct that primary health organisations that have more than 50 percent of their enrolled patients of Māori and Pacific Island descent get more Government funding than others, and therefore their patients get cheaper doctors’ visits; if so, why?

Two years ago when we rolled out the primary health care strategy, we rolled it out into areas with high need, including low-income, Māori, and Pacific people. That was in the first year, under access funding. Since then we have progressively rolled out money, regardless of where people live, based on age bands. I have never heard the member complain about giving cheaper care to old people—only to Māori and Pacific people.

Broadcasting, Minister—Confidence

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Broadcasting; if so, why?

Yes, because he is also a hard-working, conscientious Minister.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is this the same conscientious and hard-working Minister of Broadcasting who has seen Judy Bailey’s salary go from $400,000 to $800,000, despite the fact that the Prime Minister herself said that she was revolted by Paul Holmes’ $760,000 salary; and, what on earth is going on in her ministry when such hypocrisy lies so rampant in our politics?

If—and I underline “if”—the salary is as high as that, the directors appointed by the Government have some explaining to do to shareholding Ministers.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister of Broadcasting been able to establish from TVNZ whether in fact the salary is $800,000 a year or thereabouts; if so, and if it is true, will she be requiring the board of TVNZ to resign, as she suggested back in 2000 over the John Hawkesby issue?

It is my understanding that salaries are subject to confidentiality agreements. As I have said, a salary at that level, for the amount of time on air each day, I would consider to be evidence of a culture of extravagance that requires explanation to shareholding Ministers.

💬 Rodney Hide: Will the Prime Minister be requiring the board of TVNZ to disclose to her or to her Minister what Judy Bailey’s salary is; if not, why not?

It would be my understanding that the Government could not require that to be divulged, but the Government makes it very clear to directors that it does not expect a culture of extravagance in public broadcasting when money can be well deployed to making programmes for the general public.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I notice that a number of other questions are set down today related to this issue. It might help the Prime Minister in her answers—and it might help the House to get answers—if she were to be made aware of the fact that Television New Zealand, like all State enterprises, does declare the salaries it pays, in $10,000 bands, in its annual report. Is the Prime Minister really suggesting that she cannot find out about this salary and we have to wait for the annual report?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that that is not a point of order.

💬 Larry Baldock: Is the Prime Minister aware of whether Judy Bailey received her $400,000 pay increase in a brown paper bag over a meal of fish in an Auckland restaurant?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That question is a little facetious. I am not allowing it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps you could tell the member to go outside and say that, whereupon I will sue his little pants off.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, either. But I caution members to be careful about what they say inside this House and outside this House.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What has happened to TVNZ’s announcement that it will be introducing and embedding a more transparent and comprehensive remuneration and job banding model in this country; and given that, say, for a 40-hour week Judy Bailey is to receive $384 per hour, is the Prime Minister not embarrassed when a single pensioner receives less than $250 per week?

I think I have made it abundantly clear that I would consider any such salary level to be evidence of a culture of extravagance.

Schools—Enrolment Scheme Legislation

4. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he received on possible changes to school enrolment scheme legislation?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry, Lynne Pillay. The Minister will sit down. Lynne Pillay is at the back of the House. She is entitled to be heard in silence, and was not. I will now have her ask her question again.

💬 LYNNE PILLAY: What reports has he received on possible changes to school enrolment scheme legislation?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will not warn members again. I will ask a member to leave if there is any more noise during the asking of a question.

I have recently seen suggestions that children “can be herded like cattle to a local school of the Government’s choosing.” Those comments ignore the fact that under current enrolment legislation—passed by a National Government—parents are not forced to send their children to any particular school. In fact, they are guaranteed the right only to send their child to their local school if they so choose. I suspect that once Dr Brash looks at the facts and consults the member for Epsom, he will do yet another flip-flop on this issue.

💬 Lynne Pillay: Has the removal of school zoning been considered before?

Yes. School zoning was abolished under the previous National Government, which was then forced to bring it back in 1998—well supported by Christine Fletcher—in order to combat overcrowding. Removing zoning did not result in parents or students getting greater choice; it resulted in school principals hand-picking their students. This Government believes in the right of students to go to the school next door.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That answer was too long.

💬 Hon Bill English: If the Minister believes that his current rigid zoning policy is so good, why did he put out a press release in November claiming that the number of schools with zones was dropping, and that that was a good thing, when the real figures showed that the number of schools with zones was rising; when will he admit his flip-flop on that issue?

I have already apologised on this matter. I relied on inaccurate figures. I also relied, in making the statements, on the support for zoning from Bill English, who said that abolishing it would not work.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister confirm that school-zoning legislation was reintroduced by the National Government in late 1998, that the legislation had the full support of the ACT party at the time, and that the only person in the House to raise objections to that zoning legislation was one Trevor Mallard?

Yes. I think the legislation that went through at the time could have been better. That is why we improved it when we came into Government.

Question time interrupted.